If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

The government is not taking away a damn thing from people with a right to have weapons. For those that have forfeited that right through criminal activity or insanity the desire is to hinder their acquisition of weapons.

It is notable that both on a national level and on a local level here the rabid have nothing to offer but weak conspiracy theories and faux outrage at posing with children. The weakness of their outrage describes their contribution to America in its entirety.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by JayHawk

The government is not taking away a damn thing from people with a right to have weapons. For those that have forfeited that right through criminal activity or insanity the desire is to hinder their acquisition of weapons.

It is notable that both on a national level and on a local level here the rabid have nothing to offer but weak conspiracy theories and faux outrage at posing with children. The weakness of their outrage describes their contribution to America in its entirety.

what's notable is how pathetic the president's "stunt" was

how political that maneuver was

how cynical

basically what i wrote above ...... and then some

why would one do this? for what purpose ?

i don't know anything about a conspiracy and i'm beyond outrage given that this president clearly has no personal standards

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by chance1

I think having the kids there was gross - pathetic - unfortunate - cynical - fill in the blanks

he continues to show serious character defects

I disagree. I think it's like any signing of a bill or announcement of policy change. They always have affected parties in attendance. It gives a sense of action to those who were affected and it serves as a reminder to everyone else of why the legislation is being worked on and policy is being changed. I don't hear people complaining when cancer survivors are in attendance during the announcement of committing resources to fighting cancer. I don't understand where people are getting the idea of this being a political "stunt". What does the President gain from it?

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by mightbe

That sounds like smoking in the 50s.

Doc says, "Ya smoke much? Not that I really should ask, it's irrelevant you know. Government told me to."

Smoking has a direct medical impact on the body simply by practicing it. Guns are not associated with a direct medical conditions but with accidental death. If the doctor wants to give me a pamphlet on accidental death that happens to include a guns in the list of things, that fine. If I ask for more information on the subject fine. But I don't want my time wasted by probing for information that is none of his business simply because its the latest politically correct kick in the medical community. If you want tell gun owners what they already know (guns are dangerous, duh!) then buy some Public Service Announcements or put a warning flying in the box with a gun when its sold like every other product in the world. But don't waste my already expensive medical time and cost to do it.

“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud, His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat.” Mitt Romney

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

I don't think I've seen any comments about Obama wanting to hire armed security guards for the schools as part of his executive order.

There are a few news stories out that mention the conversation between Boxer and Biden on the subject but as you can tell they aren't playing it up much with the other items.

“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud, His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat.” Mitt Romney

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by JayHawk

The government is not taking away a damn thing from people with a right to have weapons. For those that have forfeited that right through criminal activity or insanity the desire is to hinder their acquisition of weapons.

It is notable that both on a national level and on a local level here the rabid have nothing to offer but weak conspiracy theories and faux outrage at posing with children. The weakness of their outrage describes their contribution to America in its entirety.

Both sides are using the children for political theater, its normal Washington politics.

“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud, His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat.” Mitt Romney

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

I haven't seen it spelled out in the executive actions, though it doesn't exactly say what a 'resource' is. Boxer and Biden were talking about it as part of the legislation package in congress and reportedly Obama agreed. Though there seems to be some indication they may only really be including it to buy Republican support.

“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud, His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat.” Mitt Romney

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

I disagree. I think it's like any signing of a bill or announcement of policy change. They always have affected parties in attendance. It gives a sense of action to those who were affected and it serves as a reminder to everyone else of why the legislation is being worked on and policy is being changed. I don't hear people complaining when cancer survivors are in attendance during the announcement of committing resources to fighting cancer. I don't understand where people are getting the idea of this being a political "stunt". What does the President gain from it?

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by chance1

the intent was to demonize opposition

which has become his go to way of doing his business

he's a very small man

Lots of opinion and no fact. I'm going to stick with the view that it's because there is ALWAYS a group of people affected by the policy around when it is announced and not go ahead and throw something out there with absolutely no basis at all.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by Stardreamer

I haven't seen it spelled out in the executive actions, though it doesn't exactly say what a 'resource' is. Boxer and Biden were talking about it as part of the legislation package in congress and reportedly Obama agreed. Though there seems to be some indication they may only really be including it to buy Republican support.

As you can see in section three, there is a specific amount of money ($150 million) that is wanted to do this. That, unfortunately, cannot be done by Executive Order since Congress must authorize additional spending. That document is the actual plan that the President has. He will do what he can with Executive Orders, but a lot of it has to pass through Congress.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Lots of opinion and no fact. I'm going to stick with the view that it's because there is ALWAYS a group of people affected by the policy around when it is announced and not go ahead and throw something out there with absolutely no basis at all.

Having ANY affected group of people with the President at ANY policy announcement is fact. Go back through the past few presidents and see how often it occurs. I'm guessing you'll find it happens EVERY time, including with cancer patients, minorities, veterans, active duty military, victims of crimes, etc.

You talk as if these kids were forced to stand up there against their will. These were families of people affected by the Connecticut shooting. They were invited to come and they made the decision that they wanted to be in attendance, with their kids, to show their support for these measures. The situation was not an "us vs. them" debate because that would require having the "them" there without children. This was a "this is what I'm proposing and these people are here supporting it because of the direct effect it had on their lives" thing. I would imagine that is the opinion of those who aren't anti-everything Obama does simply because he is Obama.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

Having ANY affected group of people with the President at ANY policy announcement is fact. Go back through the past few presidents and see how often it occurs. I'm guessing you'll find it happens EVERY time, including with cancer patients, minorities, veterans, active duty military, victims of crimes, etc.

You talk as if these kids were forced to stand up there against their will. These were families of people affected by the Connecticut shooting. They were invited to come and they made the decision that they wanted to be in attendance, with their kids, to show their support for these measures. The situation was not an "us vs. them" debate because that would require having the "them" there without children. This was a "this is what I'm proposing and these people are here supporting it because of the direct effect it had on their lives" thing. I would imagine that is the opinion of those who aren't anti-everything Obama does simply because he is Obama.

this is not a "we're in this together" moment - this is not a "coming together" moment

it's a political football

i happen to agree with his stance on the policy - and am on the record before and now about it

and if you're going to lean on "anti everything obama" it's hard to take u seriously as that's a crutch for those who think that the pres. walks on water and if u disagree with him you're racist or something else

bottom line is this is political - and he's ramping it up in a cynical way

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

this is not a "we're in this together" moment - this is not a "coming together" moment

it's a political football

i happen to agree with his stance on the policy - and am on the record before and now about it

and if you're going to lean on "anti everything obama" it's hard to take u seriously as that's a crutch for those who think that the pres. walks on water and if u disagree with him you're racist or something else

bottom line is this is political - and he's ramping it up in a cynical way

You really do try to read a lot into things don't you? The only reason this is an issue is because people like you try to make it an issue. This was a moment where the President unveiled his plan to help curb gun violence and he had people there affected by gun violence showing their support. Anything else you get from that is your own bias.

And are you seriously going to bring up the racist thing? You seem to take an anti-Obama stance in most threads on here, usually devolving into some ad hominem attack on the guy who I am sure you've never even met, which is why I made my comment. No one said he walks on water, but I do see him doing more to try to help solve problems in this country than the Republican party or people like you who do nothing but try to demonize every step he takes. If he screws up or does something stupid, then I will be there with you with a legitimate grievance. However, trying to lambast him for everything he does is a bit over-the-top and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

You really do try to read a lot into things don't you? The only reason this is an issue is because people like you try to make it an issue. This was a moment where the President unveiled his plan to help curb gun violence and he had people there affected by gun violence showing their support. Anything else you get from that is your own bias.

And are you seriously going to bring up the racist thing? You seem to take an anti-Obama stance in most threads on here, usually devolving into some ad hominem attack on the guy who I am sure you've never even met, which is why I made my comment. No one said he walks on water, but I do see him doing more to try to help solve problems in this country than the Republican party or people like you who do nothing but try to demonize every step he takes. If he screws up or does something stupid, then I will be there with you with a legitimate grievance. However, trying to lambast him for everything he does is a bit over-the-top and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

you brought up the anti everything obama thing - that not being supportive of a position or action is somehow based on an "anti everything obama" thing

that was YOU

and after 52 posts u want to categorize me ........ well that's your problem not mine

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by chance1

and after 52 posts u want to categorize me ........ well that's your problem not mine

It means I read a lot more posts than I post in. Sometimes, that's how you learn about various topics and people. And yes, your posts do seem to indicate you have a lot of personal bias against President Obama. But, you are right, bias is a form of opinion and you're definitely entitled to that.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by tigerfan482

You really do try to read a lot into things don't you? The only reason this is an issue is because people like you try to make it an issue. This was a moment where the President unveiled his plan to help curb gun violence and he had people there affected by gun violence showing their support. Anything else you get from that is your own bias.

And are you seriously going to bring up the racist thing? You seem to take an anti-Obama stance in most threads on here, usually devolving into some ad hominem attack on the guy who I am sure you've never even met, which is why I made my comment. No one said he walks on water, but I do see him doing more to try to help solve problems in this country than the Republican party or people like you who do nothing but try to demonize every step he takes. If he screws up or does something stupid, then I will be there with you with a legitimate grievance. However, trying to lambast him for everything he does is a bit over-the-top and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Their outrage over things like this -- or the color of Michelle Obama's dress, or whether Obama said "terrorist bombing" or "terrorist attack" about a particular incident -- merely gives away their lack of anything substantive to be outraged about. Yet the outrage remains.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by chance1

as for the unnamed poster - the one who's role it appears is to drop turds in as many threads as possible - he continues to prove that what a respected mod recently penned about him is 100% on the money - shame

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

The only way this is political is through the eyes of the republicans... who refuse to work with Obama on a real pressing problem. There are too many guns in this country. And something has to change. Obama isn't making this political. He's stressing this as an issue this country is facing that must be addressed.

His 52 posts say more than 20,000.

Yeah, our Chance is an elitist when it comes to post count. He has been here long. yusee, and so is more important than new users. As if his whole attitude doesn't take ten posts to be summed up. Lots of sound and no fury...

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Since Obama is such a nasty man, acting like no President has ever done by politicising those poor children, let's pause for a minute and reminisce about our previous President, who would never use children at a press conference or signing of a Bill.

You've already seen him at te signing of the No Child Left Behind Act above.

Here he is at the signing of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act:

Here's the President at the Bill Signing of the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002

Here he is at the signing of the PEPFAR Reauthorization, one of the most generous and compassionate acts of any recent President

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

Nope. He didn't use them. Keep up with the faulty claims with not one shred of proof. And yes xbuzzer is right. Save the fake outrage for something that is outrageous. There was nothing outrageous here. And no, republicans apparently don't care about children. They want to sacrifice the future of this country.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by andysayshi

Since Obama is such a nasty man, acting like no President has ever done by politicising those poor children, let's pause for a minute and reminisce about our previous President, who would never use children at a press conference or signing of a Bill.

You've already seen him at te signing of the No Child Left Behind Act above.

Here he is at the signing of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act:

Here's the President at the Bill Signing of the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002

Here he is at the signing of the PEPFAR Reauthorization, one of the most generous and compassionate acts of any recent President

And here he is at the signing of the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

Thank goodness no other Presidents ever stooped so low as Obama!

But... but... but... no!

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

In my view, whatever law is passed will make little difference.
What is required is a near total ban on guns except for strictly regulated sporting/hunting purposes.

Ana Marie Cox:

So, what if the epidemic of gun violence in the United States isn't about "assault weapons", or criminals, or the mentally ill, but about us? You. Me. Everyone. Put a gun in our immediate vicinity, someone is going to get hurt. By accident, by intent, whatever. If we think of guns this way, then regulation becomes very simple: even "responsible", "law-abiding" citizens probably shouldn't have them.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by Stardreamer

Smoking has a direct medical impact on the body simply by practicing it. Guns are not associated with a direct medical conditions but with accidental death. If the doctor wants to give me a pamphlet on accidental death that happens to include a guns in the list of things, that fine. If I ask for more information on the subject fine. But I don't want my time wasted by probing for information that is none of his business simply because its the latest politically correct kick in the medical community. If you want tell gun owners what they already know (guns are dangerous, duh!) then buy some Public Service Announcements or put a warning flying in the box with a gun when its sold like every other product in the world. But don't waste my already expensive medical time and cost to do it.

The ER & hospitals around the country, rural and urban are littered with gun wounds and deaths daily. In this reference it makes no difference rather its legal or criminal, accident or on purpose
The cost of trauma and long term disability is very high, often after much expensive life saving efforts are given death results anyway.
A great deal of the people shot and live have no health insurance or its inadequate. If criminal activity was involved the insurance company may deny coverage the same for suicide.
Why the cost of medical gun damage in regards to healthcare is not brought up is beyond me.
It has to be on par with fatties, druggies, smokers and boozers and is paid by all those with health insurance. This cost factor of the uninsured in regards to gun shot damage should be brought into the picture. As well as the long term disability.

Watch one of those reality shows such a "Real life ER" and catch the amount of gunshots that move through a big city ER on a quiet night.

Tax the ammo like booze & tobacco, and like cigarettes state the tax is to help cover some of the uninsured medical cost when they hit the ER. Base the tax on the type of gun. The more prone the weapon is to be used in crime or to kill a human the higher the tax on the ammo.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

I've seen no articles where it says that Obama has implemented the NRA's idea of having armed security guards at schools.

Does the gun banning group agree with this idea? I know I don't. I think it's crazy.

Taft had an armed guard. Didn't help much.

Originally Posted by mitchymo

Since then, there have been at least 15 spree shootings in the US, 8 of them in 2012 alone. The magnitude of the last one is enough to make any reasonable man change his mind on gun policy. Thank you Pres. Obama.

Seconded. A President who never changes his mind based on the needs and information of the time is a bad leader. I think we can all think of one.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by andysayshi

Since Obama is such a nasty man, acting like no President has ever done by politicising those poor children, let's pause for a minute and reminisce about our previous President, who would never use children at a press conference or signing of a Bill.

!

At least, Bush, for all his faults, was a genuinely good man. There is nothing genuine about Obama - the arrogant and disdainful expression on his face as he posed with those children says it all. The man is a phony.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

I think if that actually goes into nationwide implementation it will be more or less like TSA at the airport. More to make people feel better and not a real actual solution to the threat.

The real attacking of the problem itself will have to be with regulation on purchasing and access and availability.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by HenryReardon

At least, Bush, for all his faults, was a genuinely good man. There is nothing genuine about Obama - the arrogant and disdainful expression on his face as he posed with those children says it all. The man is a phony.

A genuinely stupid man, I could agree with. "Good" is not what anyone but an American neocon would say.

Re: Obama's Response to Gun Control

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

Ah, so there's a fact-based argument to be had proving that someone who signs torture into policy is a "good man"?

"Torture" If you're referring to waterboarding, it hardly constitutes torture.
But back to the subject at hand: Harry S Truman was a good man, yet as president he had to look at the greater good when he authorized the use of the atomic bomb.